Author: sgwikieo
Description:
As well as having patrolled edits (ones that aren't obvious vandalism I think),
there should be suspicious edits (changing a detail for example)
Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement
Description
Description
Details
Details
- Reference
- bz1189
Revisions and Commits
Revisions and Commits
| Unknown Object (Diffusion Commit) |
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Invalid | None | T5741 [DO NOT USE] Stable Version / Review / Tagging (tracking) [superseded by #MediaWiki-extensions-FlaggedRevs or others] | |||
| Open | Feature | None | T3189 Manual tagging of edits, for review | ||
| Resolved | TTO | T20670 Create ability to add / remove tags from edits / actions |
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
robchur wrote:
How would you compute what's supicious? I'm interested, just skeptical we could
find a good enough algorithm.
Comment Actions
ssd.wiki wrote:
Suspicious edits should be flagged by a user who saw it, but isn't sure of the
details, and does not want to (or can't) research it. This is somewhat similar
to the {{fact}} template on en:
Comment Actions
I've done some work in r17608 and r17609 to implement something similar to the
feature described in this bug.
Comment Actions
robchur wrote:
Ultimately, I'm not sure expanding the scope of automatic edit summaries is the
way to go about addressing this request; I think it would be more effective in
the long run to introduce some sort of flag for a change, indicating it should
be double-checked. Then again, existing patrolling features (and extensions),
and forthcoming stable version tagging and reviewing features will make this
kind of thing obsolete.
Comment Actions
Right. And the auto-summary code will be adapted to be a tag instead of an
autosummary when this tagging code comes around.
Comment Actions
ayg wrote:
Bug 8221 has a considerably more detailed proposal that might or might not be the best way to do this.
Comment Actions
I've got some interest in implementing this when I have time. Flags could be applied, for example, by the Abuse Filter, and Tor Block extensions.
Comment Actions
mike.lifeguard+bugs wrote:
This request is about allowing humans to manually add a marker to a revision - not doing this automatically as AbuseFilter and TorBlock do.
Comment Actions
It looks like starting with Bugzilla was/is the wrong path for this request. First the feature should have buy-in from the editors (pick a project, i.e. enwiki), and if it has consensus then we can discuss about implementing it.
As it is now, no developer will jump on it.
Comment Actions
(In reply to Quim Gil from comment #18)
It looks like starting with Bugzilla was/is the wrong path for this request.
First the feature should have buy-in from the editors (pick a project, i.e.
enwiki), and if it has consensus then we can discuss about implementing it.As it is now, no developer will jump on it.
This is nonsense. Adding arbitrary tags to revisions is inherently useful.
This Bugzilla installation and its various inputs are a clear demonstration of the utility of tags and keywords and a whiteboard. Of course Bugzilla attaches this metadata to bugs (vaguely equivalent to pages) rather than comments (vaguely equivalent to revisions), but between this ancient bug report and its duplicates, there's obvious interest in implementing this capability.
It also seems noteworthy that there's now a "Change tagging" component in Bugzilla. It'd be nice if users could, uh, tag changes.
Whether to put this feature in MediaWiki core or in a MediaWiki extension is up for debate, though.
Comment Actions
Tags can be generic and not indicate anything actually suspicious, e.g. visualeditor. So there is still no way for the software to identify an edit as suspicious. Being able to declare that a tag identifies suspicious edits would solve this issue. This is implemented in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/190656.